Hamilton Watch Co.

HAMILTON WATCH COMPANY 379 If the majority of the employees in the above-described voting group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of represen- tatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining. If the majority of the employees in the voting group cast their ballots for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the existing unit currently represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. If the majority of the employees in the voting group cast their ballots for neither labor organization, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be unrepresented by any labor organization appearing on the ballot, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Hamilton Watch Company and International Association of Machinists, District #98, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2648. July 28,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Julius Topol, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. The Employer contends that its current contract with the Inter- venor constitutes a bar to the instant proceedings. The Petitioner contends that the contract contains an illegal union-security provision and, thus, could not serve as a bar herein. At the hearing and in its brief the Intervenor, although asserting that the contract does not 'In view of our disposition of the contract -bar issue of this case , it is unnecessary for us to rule upon the hearing officer's refusal to admit evidence pertaining to the enforce- ment of the union-security provisions of the contract between the Employer and the Intervenor. F Hamilton Watch Workers Union (affiliated with the American Watch Workers Union), herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its current con- tract with the Employer covering the employees here involved. 113 NLRB No. 46. 380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contain an unlawful union-security provision, waived the assertion of the contract as a bar. The contract in issue here will expire October 1, 1955, and has an automatic renewal date 60 days prior thereto (August 1, 1955). In these circumstances, since the Mill-B date of the contract is less than 30 days from the date of issuance of this decision, we find that the contract is not a bar.' Accordingly, we need not pass upon the con- tentions involving the validity of the union-security provisions of the contract. We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we so find, that the following described unit is an appropriate one for purposes of collective bargaining herein : All production and maintenance employees at the Hamilton Watch Company's Columbia Avenue, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, plant and Engineering and Research Laboratory building, Wheatland Avenue, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, including inspectors (other than roving in- spectors) on both departmental and inspection department payrolls, factory clerical employees, service department clerks, factory stock- room clerks, clerks in the packing and shipping sections of the traffic department, building and ground maintenance employees, cafeteria employees, boilerhouse employees, and training school employees who are being trained for production and maintenance jobs, but excluding roving inspectors, the head cook in the cafeteria, all engineers and engineering, research, and research development employees at both the Columbia Avenue plant and the Wheatland Avenue Engineering and Research Laboratory building, office clerical employees, secretaries to supervisory personnel, production control employees, mechanical department employees, chemical and metallurgical department em- ployees, product design department employees, machine experimental department employees, model department employees, physical re- search department employees, engineering records department em- ployees, metal research department employees, industrial engineering • department employees, personnel department employees, technicians and chemists in the works laboratory, medical department employees, guards, factory payroll clerks, all main office employees (including office clerical employees, sales employees, and supervisors), and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 3 Remington Rand Inc., 109 NLRB 622; Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 800, 802-803.